Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:45:55 +0200 From: Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org> To: rotkap@gmx.de Cc: kuriyama@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why "-R" und not "-r"? Message-ID: <20061227094555.GA4134@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> In-Reply-To: <l6c764-lu3.ln1@news.hansenet.de> References: <l6c764-lu3.ln1@news.hansenet.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+QahgC5+KEYLbs62
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:04:21PM +0100, Heino Tiedemann wrote:
> Hi There,
>=20
> one question about this antry in UPDATING:
>=20
> ,----
> | 20061221:
> | AFFECTS: users of security/gnupg
> | AUTHOR: kuriyama@FreeBSD.org
> |=20
> | The security/gnupg port was upgraded to 2.0.1 (with securty fix)
> | and good-old gnupg-1.4.6 was repocopied to security/gnupg1.
> |=20
> | Both of security/gnupg (2.x) and security/gnupg1 (1.4.x) are
> | designed not to conflict with each other. So you can use
> | security/gnupg1 for gpg(1), and use security/gnupg for gpg2(1)
> | commands.
> |=20
> | All directly dependents are $PORTREVISION bumped, so portupgrade -R
> | gnupg will works fine. After portupgrade, you will have both of
> | gnupg-2.0.1 and gnupg-1.4.6.
> `----
>=20
>=20
> Why "portupgrade -R gnup"? Isn't it "portupgrade -r gnup"?=20
Looks like a typo. It should be portupgrade -r gnupg.
--=20
Vasil Dimov
gro.DSBeerF@dv
%
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not hav=
e,
nor do they deserve, either one.
-- Benjamin Franklin
--+QahgC5+KEYLbs62
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFFkkDTFw6SP/bBpCARAjN/AJ9foE56XNyT7nVcN0tqMpzyixwHGwCeNpRT
E6pPIcQbWILblBKiZzaN6OQ=
=smcX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--+QahgC5+KEYLbs62--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061227094555.GA4134>